Republican lawmakers are largely backing the Pentagon’s decision to send thousands of additional troops to the Middle East, framing it as leverage against Iran. But many voiced discomfort with anything that looks like a ground war.
“I hope and pray that they don’t have to put a single person on the ground,” Sen. Thom Tillis, who is retiring after this term, told reporters Tuesday.
“I’m OK with using this as another lever to get Iran to come to the table to cease hostilities,” Tillis added. “But if we’re going to deploy them in a dangerous setting, clearly members of Congress need to understand what that is.”
The Trump administration is sending roughly 5,000 Marines and at least 1,000 troops from the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division to the Middle East, according to the Associated Press, raising new questions on Capitol Hill about whether the U.S. is moving closer to ground operations.
Trending
“I would hope that we wouldn’t see ground troops in combat,” Sen. Josh Hawley said. “It’s time to bring this to an end. I hope we wouldn’t escalate it with ground troops.”
While no decision has been made to send U.S. troops into Iran, the deployments line up with scenarios officials have reportedly discussed, including operations along Iran’s shoreline and on Kharg Island.
The buildup comes as President Donald Trump tries to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. Over the weekend, Trump gave Tehran 48 hours to reopen the strait or face strikes on its power grid. He then extended that deadline by five days as of Monday, saying the extra time would allow for “productive” talks.
The administration says it is in indirect contact with Iran through regional intermediaries, though Tehran has publicly denied that any direct negotiations are underway.
For now, most Republicans say they are comfortable with the buildup as a short-term step.
A longer-term deployment would raise new concerns, including force protection and funding, Tillis said. He argued that if the U.S. is in for a more sustained engagement, Congress should “legitimize this” with a vote on authorization for the use of military force.
Tension over the war could soon spill into a funding fight. The prospect of a supplemental funding request is already prompting questions from some Republicans about the cost of the war and whether a short-term buildup could turn into a longer U.S. commitment.
Other Republicans also expressed discomfort with the idea of troops in combat.
Sen. Rick Scott said, “I hope not,” when asked if a ground war was likely.
Asked if the U.S. should invade Iran, Sen. Roger Wicker replied: “I don’t presently think so,”
But some acknowledged that it could happen.
“Of course there is the possibility,” Sen. Mike Rounds said of a ground war, adding that support would depend on how any plan is presented to Congress.
The uncertainty is compounded by what some lawmakers say is an incomplete picture from the administration. Hawley said he “would welcome the opportunity for further briefing.”
“We’re just not getting a lot of information,” Sen. Lisa Murkowski said.
Sen. Todd Young said the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees are responsible for examining the buildup and broader strategy. He said he supports public hearings unless there is a strong reason to keep portions of the discussion private.
For now, many Republicans are deferring to the White House and the 60-day window under the War Powers Act, giving the Trump administration time to pursue its objectives.
Tillis said the administration has about four weeks until it would need to get more specific about whether the war is becoming a longer-term engagement that requires authorization from Congress or a plan to withdraw.
Meanwhile, Senate Democrats are forcing a series of war powers votes this week, including one from Sen. Chris Murphy on Tuesday night, to drive public debate and pressure Republicans to go on the record. A similar resolution from Sen. Cory Booker failed last week.
Author
